[Congressional Record Volume 154, Number 58 (Monday, April 14, 2008)]
[House]
[Pages H2251-H2256]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
THE STATUS OF ENERGY IN THE WORLD TODAY
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of
January 18, 2007, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Shimkus) is
recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader.
Mr. SHIMKUS. Madam Speaker, it was a pleasure to be down here
listening to the special orders of my friends from the various States,
and especially my friend from Connecticut, Mr. Courtney, and I
understand his compassion and concern. But I will tell you that if we
don't get a handle on these energy costs, people aren't going to have
the money to do the things they want to do with their families on a
day-to-day basis. So we have this time tonight to talk about energy and
our energy status in the world today.
We started doing this last week on a bill that came to the floor that
we are going to finish this week, the Beach Protection Act of 2007. We
took that opportunity to talk about that. But we ought to be addressing
some of the pressing concerns of this country today.
We hear the term that America, and rural America, is bitter. It is a
big phrase today and over the weekend. They are bitter. They are bitter
about high energy costs, and they are bitter about the fact that this
Congress is not doing anything to address the supply part of this
debate.
More supply means lower costs. That is basic economics 101. Anyone
who has gone to have a bachelor's degree, and even some good high
school programs teach economics, it is a simple supply and demand
equation. So we are going to talk about energy tonight. My focus is
going to be on supply, how we need more supply.
We also hear a lot this year about change. We want change, and
everybody wants change. But, you know, change is not always good. Here
is an example of change.
Since the Democrats got in the majority, when they first got sworn
in, the price of a barrel of crude oil was $58.31. Today, the price of
a barrel of crude oil is $111.15. I would say that is bad change. That
is not good change. So change is not always good. This is negative
change, and it flies in the face of promises from my friends on the
other side of the aisle.
The Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi said on April 24, 2006, about
2 years ago, ``Democrats have a commonsense plan to help bring down the
skyrocketing gas prices.'' Well, that was almost $60 a barrel less ago,
and $1 and change per gallon of gas less.
{time} 2000
Majority leader Steny Hoyer said, October 4, 2005, ``Democrats
believe that we can do more for the American people who are struggling
to deal with high gas prices.''
Well, they did. They did. What did they do? They raised their gas
prices. You want to talk about not being able to pay for dental care?
People are using their money to get to work.
In rural America, we drive long distances. Rural America doesn't have
the access of buses. Rural America doesn't have the opportunity to take
the Metro or light rail.
Those who are driving distances to get to work are harmed
exponentially greater. Democrats proffered lower gas prices. What do we
have? We have higher gas prices. All we are asking them to do is keep
their prices. Help them lower the price of gasoline, but they won't do
it. Do you know why they won't do it?
They won't do it because they really hate fossil fuels in this
country. They hate crude oil, and they hate coal. They hate crude oil,
and they hate coal.
They hate fossil fuels, so to address high prices, what we have to do
is bring on more fossil fuels to the market, and they won't do it.
That's why we are not going to have any relief on gases.
Constituents ask me, what are you going to do to lower prices? What
are you going to do, Congress? I just shake my head, and I said the
only thing that's going to happen is prices are going to go up because
demand is going to continue to go up, supply is going to stay the same,
and you are going to have higher prices.
Democrat Whip Jim Clyburn, Democrat from South Carolina, said ``House
Democrats have a plan to help curb rising gas prices.'' Jim got it
wrong. ``No'' is not an energy plan. They had no plan, and when you
have no plan, you plan to fail, and what do you get? You get higher
prices.
We know we are going to have $4 a gallon gas this summer sometime. We
know it. In fact, the newspapers are
[[Page H2252]]
starting to raise this issue, ``$4 gasoline seen possible this
summer,'' the Buffalo News, April 9, 2008; price at the pump likely to
reach $4, the Washington Times, April 9, 2008; ``$4 Per Gallon Gas
Creeps Closer,'' Fox News, Denver, Colorado, April 9.
We know we are going to have $4 a gallon of gas. How do we stop that
from happening? We have to bring on more supply. I have some friends
here to join me, but I am going to finish with one solution that has
bipartisan support, and that's coal-to-liquid technologies.
There are a lot of ways we can address this debate and this issue,
but let me just pitch one to you. The Illinois Coal Basin, and I am
from Illinois, I am biased, the Illinois Coal Basin is basically the
State of Illinois and the southwestern part of Indiana and the western
part of Kentucky. That's all a big coal field.
Under the ground there is as much fossil fuel energy in coal as Saudi
Arabia has in oil, 250-year's worth. We have been mining and using it
for generations. In fact, I am fourth-generation Lithuanian American.
My great grandfather immigrated to my home town of Collinsville,
Illinois, where I still live. What did he do? He worked in the coal
mines. My grandfather worked in the coal mines.
In southern Illinois, we have coal mines and we have mine workers. We
have an abundant natural resource.
Now, we know coal can be used to generate electricity, but I am not
talking about generation of electricity right now. What I am talking
about is liquid fuels, the stuff that we need to put in our cars so we
can get to work. How do we lower the price of gasoline in this country?
That's where coal-to-liquid technology comes in.
We also had these budget airlines, three of them went bankrupt, one
is on the verge. What's one of the problems? The high cost of aviation
fuel.
All those people are unemployed. They don't have a job. They are
going to be a burden to the safety net. They are not going to have
dental care which was provided by their employer. But now they are
unemployed because of the high cost of jet fuel.
How do we bring liquid fuel back to the arena that the budget
airlines and the soccer mom, who is shepherding those kids around in
the minivan, can afford to do that. We bring on more supply. One option
is to use our vast resources of coal in this country and use that
technology that goes back to World War II, the Fischer-Tropsh
technologies.
Synthetic fuel, Sasol, the South African oil company has been using
it for decades. It just got permission to use synthetic aviation fuel
for the British commercial air fleet.
We have not a single coal-to-liquid plant in this country. The
premise is simple, you have a coal mine. This is surface mining, mostly
western coal here. In Illinois it would be below surface.
At that location you build a coal-to-liquid refinery. First of all
you have jobs, jobs in the coal mine. Then you have jobs that build a
refinery. Then you have jobs to operate the coal mines and jobs to
operate the refinery, good-paying jobs with good-paying benefits and
dental care. Then you have a pipeline so you don't have to address the
transportation of this fuel, and you pipe it to the major metropolitan
areas of this country, or you pipe it to the air base.
You know the number one aviation fuel user in the world, you know who
it is? Our United States Air Force. They are begging for this
opportunity. They are held captives to imported crude oil and the high
cost of jet fuel.
We can do it here. We know what Katrina did to the refineries in the
gulf coast, it shut a couple of them down, causing price spikes,
causing dislocations.
Well, what's the benefit of this technology? You don't have to have
it on the gulf coast. You are not importing the crude oil. You can
build one in southern Illinois. You could build one in Wyoming, in
Montana. You could build one in Kentucky or Ohio or West Virginia,
right where the coal is located, close to the pipeline that connects to
our major metropolitan areas, available, low-cost fuel to turn into jet
fuel, gasoline, aviation fuel, diesel fuel, things that are causing
great concerns and problems in our country today.
We have got bills to do this. Many Members do. My bill, I am the
primary cosponsor with Congressman Rick Boucher, a Democrat from
Virginia, on a price-collar provision. There are provisions for long-
term contracting. There are some other marketing provisions out there
where we could do this, we could send a signal to industry.
We want to do this, we want to have these up and running in 5 years.
We want to help decrease our reliance on imported crude oil. We want to
lower the cost of fuel. This Congress could do it. I guarantee you if
we did it, this administration would sign the bill.
It's up to Democrats who made promises in 2006 that they had a plan
to lower the price of gasoline. You read the quotes. I read the quotes
to you, Madam Speaker.
You know the promises that were made. You know the promises that were
not kept. In fact, not only were the promises not kept, we have done
worse. You didn't lower the cost of fuel, we raised the cost of fuel.
We didn't lower the price of a barrel of crude oil.
When Speaker Pelosi got sworn in, the price of a barrel of crude oil
was $58.31; today, $111. Now I did this part of the speech last week,
it was $110. It has gone up $1 just since Wednesday.
With that, I am pleased to be joined by my colleague from New Jersey,
Congressman Garrett. I thank him for joining me. I yield you some time.
Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. I thank the gentleman.
As I so often say when I come to the floor, in looking back 16
months, this country has been under the control of the Democrat-led
Congress. What has those 16 months wrought? We have higher food prices,
a recession now in the economy with which almost everyone agrees, even
former Chairman Greenspan, housing prices basically in a free fall down
and, of course, energy prices going through the roof.
You made a comment about gasoline prices being up to almost $4 a
gallon by the summer. Of course, diesel fuel already, in my neck of the
woods, the great State of New Jersey, is at $4 a gallon.
It amazes me each time I drive past the pump. I don't use diesel.
Truckers most often do. Farming equipment on the farms do. Of course, I
am amazed that people are still able to make a living.
But 16 months under a Democrat-controlled rule here in the House of
Representatives, what has it wrought? We have higher food prices, a
recession in the economy, free fall of the housing prices and energy
prices through the roof, causing hardships for all Americans.
I come from the State of New Jersey. When I go home, I just went home
for the weekend, and I talked to my friends and constituents back home.
They are paying the price, at the pump, at the food store, everywhere,
and it's creating a real hardship for the American family.
When the American family sits down each week and pays their bills,
gets out their checkbook, and say how are we going to pay this month's
mortgage payment, this month's rent payment, first they have to pay all
of these other expenses.
At the end of the week, they realize the money is just not in the
checkbook anymore. One of the root causes is the price of fuel. They
are probably scratching their heads saying what is the Democrat-led
majority in the House doing about it? Where is that plan that you were
referring to that the Democrats campaigned on 18 months ago before they
took over the majority? Where is that plan during these last 16 months
now that they have been in the majority?
My constituents wait. You and I wait.
In the meantime, let's take a look at the facts. Democrats make all
sorts of claims about the price of energy, about the price of gasoline
prices. I would like to address just three or four of them.
First of all, one of the most frequent things, and you see hearings
on this over and over, Democrats will say, well, it's because of
America, it's because of those American oil companies that we have
skyrocketing prices. Let's get into the facts a little bit about that,
though. U.S. energy companies are not even in the top 10 when you look
at total proven oil reserves and gas reserves in the entire world.
[[Page H2253]]
For example, ExxonMobil has less than 5 percent of the stock held by
Saudi Aramco. A full 53 percent of the price we pay for gasoline when
we go to the pump is related to the price of the crude oil that goes
into it, a world commodity.
Can Democrats really accuse American oil companies of so influencing
prices when they own such a marginally small amount of the total world
supply? When we think about it, this is a part and parcel of the
Democrat blame America first doctrine here too in energy.
Secondly, Democrats say that the U.S. needs to decrease demand for
oil. We have to live more modestly, I guess, is what that really
translates out to be.
It turns out the facts are this, in recent years U.S. American
families' demand for oil and all its uses has actually begun to
stabilize, and we have seen over a period of time an actual decrease in
the amount of use. Meanwhile, world demand for oil has actually
increased to 84 million barrels a year. That's an increase of 16
million barrels just over the last decade.
While we are willing and able and want to work with the other side of
the aisle to come up with ways to conserve fuel, the facts point to the
fact that we should not be blaming America first with regard to
increased use of oil. But it's the rest of the world that is just
increasing their consumption, which is a supply and demand factor.
Thirdly, Democrats are off to say that the Americans already have
reliable access to energy supplies. Well, when we get into the facts,
it refutes what the Democrats are saying.
The U.S., as a matter of fact, is the only, the only industrial
Nation in the entire world that locks up 85 percent of its open
available deep sea energy reserves. Let me repeat that number again, 85
percent of our reserves offshore and elsewhere are locked up. We can't
get to them. You and I can't use them today, our children can't use
them tomorrow, grandchildren in the future, they are locked up under
their plan.
Even worse, we have not even built a new refinery in this country for
the last 32 years. As a result of these factors, 63 percent of our
energy supplies that we should be able to use right here in this
country are obtained from foreign sources instead. The Democrat plan
makes us even more reliant on foreign sources, those same foreign
sources that are unreliable, unstable and oftentimes hostile to the
United States as well.
{time} 2015
Fourthly, Democrats claim that the Federal Government, the
bureaucrats here in Washington, must micromanage, if you will, and
regulate these American oil companies. Again, what are the facts. The
facts are that in 2007, these very same American oil companies and
themselves spent $183 billion in new investment. What does that do,
that leads to the development of more efficient environmental fuels on
the market.
Meanwhile, the Democrat majority has voted to raise taxes four
separate times just during the 110th Congress. I began my remarks
asking what has 16 months under Democrat control wrought when it comes
to this country, well, one point there is four separate times taxes
have gone up during this Congress. And where does that end up being
paid from? Well, tomorrow is April 15, tax day, and we know who pays.
It comes down not on the corporations and big business, it is comes
down on the consumer.
So soaring prices are the result of supply and demand, and the best
approach to energy efficiency and cost reduction is one that is market
based. The worst approach is no plan whatsoever, which is what we have
seen by the other side of the aisle, and a lack of a plan that engages
in such rhetoric as blame America first, restrict the development of
efficient energy resources that are American based, and the worst plan
is to make the United States and the citizens of this country even more
reliant on those unstable and hostile regimes.
I thank the gentleman for coming to the floor tonight and reminding
all of America about the dilemma that we face going in, both in the
short term with the family budget today and the future, and the great
need we have to have a plan put in place and implemented. I look
forward to working with you to achieve such.
Mr. SHIMKUS. I thank my colleague for coming down to the floor. As he
was speaking I was thinking, and of course I started by talking about
two buzz words that are out there because of this politicized season. I
think we need to merge them together.
What we have from the Democrat majority on energy policy is bitter
change. Bitter change; $58 a barrel for crude oil to $111 per barrel of
crude oil; $2.40 for a gallon of gasoline to $3.50. We have bitter
change, not good change, bitter change because there is no energy
policy.
First there are the grand promises made by the Democratic leadership
which I quoted earlier and will probably quote again. No change, bad
change, bitter change. It is unfortunate because it is our citizens who
are feeling the burden.
I started this last week again during the healthy beaches discussion.
It is amazing as I was looking at the stories over the weekend flying
home and flying back today, a whole bunch of articles. ``Truckers feel
the crunch of high diesel prices.'' This one is better. ``Independent
truckers join strike.'' It has tractor-trailer rigs, shut them down, on
strike. Try $4 a gallon; bitter change to the independent truck driver.
There is no energy policy. When you have no policy, you have a failed
policy.
Another article, ``High fuel prices mean high costs.'' There is a lot
of blame being given to the agricultural sector because of the high
cost of food, but the Federal Reserve Bank in Kansas City said over the
past three decades, rising labor and energy costs have boosted that
share steadily from 67 percent in the 1970s to 80 percent today.
The Federal Reserve Bank also estimated that a 10 percent gain in
energy prices could contribute to 5.2 percent increase in retail food
prices. And, John Urbanchuk in an article ``The Relative Impact of Corn
and Energy Prices in the Grocery Aisle'' on June 14, 2007, said rising
energy prices had a more significant impact on food prices than did
corn.
Bitter change; no energy plan. The Democrats failed to bring supply
into the energy debate. We can pass efficiencies and renewables, but
the reality is it is only nibbling around the edges. The Energy
Information Agency projects a 30 percent increase in demand in
electricity by 2030, a 30 percent demand increase. And we are nibbling
around the edges. People think we are going to do it with solar panels
and wind turbines. They can help. We would like to have them. In fact,
I just heard Illinois is one of the largest States to try to employ
wind power. But it is not going to meet our demand. Energy prices are
going to go up, and when they do, the average American citizen,
especially in rural America, pays a disproportionate burden because we
have to travel long distances to go to work. We don't have the commuter
rails and the bus services. What we have is our truck. And we like our
trucks.
I am going to talk about electricity generation. I have spent a lot
of time on liquid fuels, but I am joined by the gentleman from Oklahoma
(Mr. Sullivan) and so I yield to him at this time.
Mr. SULLIVAN. I thank Congressman Shimkus, and I appreciate your
leadership today and also on the Energy and Commerce Committee where
Congressman Shimkus has worked hard on issues to help solve the
problems in this country.
Congressman Shimkus, you are right. I didn't realize until you showed
the chart, how much under Democratic leadership oil prices have gone
up. It is staggering. And gas prices have gone up, too, under
Democratic leadership in this Congress.
Congressman Shimkus knows, too, that we have tried very hard on the
Energy and Commerce Committee to have rational, comprehensive solutions
in this country. We had a bill recently where Congressman Shimkus tried
to get some of his legislation into this bill that would have helped a
great deal, the coal-to-liquids technology, and it was stifled. They
wouldn't allow it in.
What kind of bill did we get. Congressman Shimkus is right, ``no'' is
not an energy policy. We got no energy policy. We got a bill that was
energy policy in name only.
[[Page H2254]]
What they did was they had those curly light bulbs with mercury from
China in them and everybody is going to put the bulbs in their homes,
and that is really going to help our energy solution. That is a step in
the right direction, I guess, but it is not going to solve our problem.
Also they looked at efficiencies in our appliances, which is a good
thing, but we need to go much, much further.
One of the things that Congressman Shimkus talked about is supply and
demand, and that is what this is all about. We haven't built a refinery
in this country in the last 30 years. Congressman Garrett was talking
about that. That is a problem. When all of our refineries are operating
at maximum capacity, you can only get so much fuel out of them. We need
more refineries in this country, and we can do it in an environmentally
sound way.
Also, we need to spur domestic production, getting more oil, gas and
coal in the United States instead of relying on countries, particularly
in the Middle East, that we have been at war with recently. That is not
a good idea. If it is in our backyard, let's get it here. Nobody wants
to hurt the environment. Everybody wants to have clean air, water, and
land. The oil, gas and coal companies do, too.
We also need in our energy policy to start looking at other energy
sources as well. That is important, getting away from oil, gas and
coal, but it is not going to be in the near future. It is a pure
technology-driven issue. And we need alternative sources of energy. We
need solar and wind. We need nuclear. We need alternative fuels. We
need all of those things, but it is going to take time. You can't do it
immediately. We need to develop those technologies to where they can be
brought to the public, like batteries in cars developed to where people
can afford them, and develop and use alternative energy sources. And we
need to develop more gas and oil here in the United States.
You know, Cuba allows China to drill off the coast of Florida. Yet in
the United States, we can't drill in a lot of places offshore here in
the United States. We can't do it.
Also here in the United States there are areas where we can't explore
in. We hear a lot about the Alaskan Wildlife Reserve. Let's develop
that here in the United States. There is a vast quantity of oil in the
Alaskan Wildlife Reserve. We can develop it in an environmentally sound
way where it is not going to hurt some caribou or anything like that.
The Alaskan pipeline, they said that was going to happen there, yet the
caribou actually like the pipeline. They use it for shelter.
But if we develop the Alaskan Wildlife Reserve, let's put it in
perspective. If ANWR were the size of a football field, the area we are
talking about drilling in would be the size of a postage stamp on the
football field. The footprint we drill in would be relatively small.
Oil and gas companies want to do it in an environmentally sound way.
And some experts say we could produce at least 2 million barrels a day
out of ANWR. We were importing almost that much from Saddam Hussein and
Iraq before the war happened. We could lessen that.
It is ridiculous that we depend so much on countries that have been
hostile to the United States on something that is so important.
But when we look at energy policy, we need to look at it from a
multi-pronged approach. We need to look at all of the oil, gas and
coal. They are here to stay for the time being. But we need to look at
alternative energy sources as well. I think everybody agrees that is
important.
We need real solutions. We need real energy policy in this country,
and we are not getting it from the Democrat-controlled Congress. We
have worked hard and Congressman Shimkus has worked hard in the
committee to get these things done, but they stifle them every time. We
need real solutions to real problems, and this is a problem that if we
don't address relatively soon, it is going to come home to roost. It is
a national security issue. We are putting ourselves in jeopardy, and it
is wrong. It is the wrong thing to do.
Again, I commend Congressman Shimkus for all he does on the Energy
and Commerce Committee and for doing this special order tonight.
Mr. SHIMKUS. I thank my colleague, and especially for again returning
the focus to the national security dynamics of this.
The United States Air Force is the number one consumer of aviation
fuel in the world. What are they asking for? They want a safe, reliable
supply of aviation fuel. Reliable. The only way they are going to get a
reliable supply of aviation fuel is if that aviation fuel is produced
by a commodity product where we are not relying on importation. That
goes back to this debate on coal-to-liquid technologies.
Again, just in the Illinois coal basin alone, 250 years worth, as
much energy as Saudi Arabia has in crude oil, just the Illinois coal
basin alone. We are not talking about the Wyoming-Montana coal basin or
the West Virginia, Virginia, Ohio, Kentucky region. We are talking
about the Illinois coal basin has as much energy as Saudi Arabia has in
oil.
So as we go back to the coal-to-liquid debate and we are talking
about national security, and we need to have the fuel to fly our war
machines, coal, locally discovered, developed, brought to the surface,
with a coal-to-liquid refinery, built by the building trades, operated
by organized labor and our boilermaker friends, high-paying wages, good
benefits, not on the coastal plain, in the Midwest, pipeline to, and
this chart just happens to show an F-18 Tomcat, a United States Air
Force fighter plane.
{time} 2030
Our Air Force is asking for this for national security, a reliable
source of jet fuel, and we continue to delay.
What's the other world doing? What's the other countries, other world
doing?
Well, Russia is attempting to grab a vast chunk of the Arctic to
claim to its vast potential oil, gas and mineral wells to fuel that
country's economy. Russia's going after fossil fuels.
Well, what's our other friends doing?
Brazil, Russia, India and China have overtaken the United States in
dominating the global energy industry, according to a study by Goldman
Sachs.
What's the Chinese doing? China is building 40 nuclear plants in the
next 15 years. 40. We'll be lucky to have one. One. No carbon emissions
in a nuclear power plant. Zero.
I think that's the biggest frustration that a lot of us have from our
friends on the environmental left. They don't like nuclear power. They
don't like coal. They don't like crude oil. We're trying to find out
what they like.
China is planning 40 nuclear power plants in the next 15 years, and I
pray that we have one. I would be ecstatic to have four. There's no way
we'll have 15. There's just no way. The United States has not licensed
one nuclear power plant in 30 years, not one, due to my friends on the
other side's continued opposition to nuclear power.
We could bring nuclear power legislation to the floor in this
Congress. And it would have bipartisan support. All the Republicans
would support it. Well, we might lose about three. And I bet we could
grab 40 Democrats that would support it. I bet we could have a
bipartisan majority vote on coal-to-liquid technologies. I'd bet it'd
be the same. We'd have all the Republicans minus a handful, and we'd
get about 40 Democrat votes. But this Democrat leadership will not
bring a bill to the floor that addresses the supply debate.
China opened new domestic energy reserves in 2004 and has planned to
increase production by about 8 billion barrels by 2010.
Democrats refuse to allow American workers to produce American oil.
In fact, in the energy debate last year, not the final bill that
passed, but the two that didn't get signed into law, they put another
area of natural gas off limits.
We need increased supply. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to know
that if you want lower prices, you have to have more supply. We don't
get any help.
China's increasing offshore energy production to reduce its own
dependence on foreign oil. Let me say that, because I've got some
friends over there who live on the coast. China is increasing offshore
energy production. In fact, we know just 50 miles off of Florida, 50
miles, it's not a U.S. energy company or a U.S. energy exploration to
go after the oil in the Gulf 50 miles off Miami. It's China. China has
better access to our oil reserves on the Outer
[[Page H2255]]
Continental Shelf than we have. Isn't that crazy?
China's increasing offshore energy production to reduce its own
dependence on foreign oil, growing that production at an average of
15.3 percent per year, with plans to make offshore oil production
China's largest source of oil by doubling production by 2010.
And we know what happens any time we talk about offshore exploration,
a counting of gas and oil reserves, just trying to figure out what's
there we have a fight.
China invested $24 billion in large scale coal liquification
technologies. Oh, that sounds familiar. Coal-to-liquid technologies.
The United States, what are we doing? Zip, zero, nada, nothing.
What's China doing? China invested $24 billion in large scale coal
liquification technology. We can't get a vote on that on the floor.
China's expanding its natural gas infrastructure by constructing
pipelines. We can't get a pipeline bill moved.
China rapidly is expanding its refining capacity. Democrats have
repeatedly voted against expanding American refinery capacity. In fact,
one of the huge problems we have, which I find is really--I think
people understand that we import crude oil. We're relying on imported
crude oil and that's bad.
What the public, I think, would even get angrier at is we import
refined product. We import gasoline. So not only, we lose the refining
jobs. It would be better for us to import the crude oil and refine that
crude oil, or at least we'd have our friends in the refining industry,
many of those bargaining unit employees would have jobs. But we are
importing refined product. Criminal negligence.
China is ambitiously developing its nuclear power industry with plans
to spend approximately $50 billion on 30 additional nuclear reactors
within the next 15 years. China is planning on constructing many new
large scale hydroelectric projects over the forecast period, including
the 18.2 gigawatt Three Gorges dam project, which is scheduled to be
operational by 2009.
In fact, we're tearing down dams. We're not expanding hydroelectric
power. 50 percent of the electricity we use is produced by coal in this
country. 50 percent. 20 percent by nuclear power, 20 percent by
hydroelectric, and the rest the others.
I'm going to move to the concern. With no plan to address this
problem, which is the escalating costs of crude oil, again, when
Speaker Pelosi took over, $58 a barrel, crude oil.
I'll be honest. Bush took over it was $27. I always say that. Bush it
was $27, Pelosi, $58, now $111. With all the promises, and maybe I'll
just read those one more time as I end.
But the basic premise is, under Democrat leadership of the House, the
average American is paying more. We're paying more. We're going to pay
more in taxes. We know that. But this isn't a special order on taxes.
This is a special order on energy.
We're paying more at the pump. Here's the reason why. The high cost
of a barrel of crude oil, we're relying on imported crude oil. One
solution would be technology. Another would be to move into electric
cars. But guess what? Electric cars need an electric supply. They'll
need nuclear power plants. They'll need coal generating, coal, then the
electricity generation plants buy coal. There's going to be, we have to
have something to charge the batteries to allow these battery-run cars
to run.
Let's talk a minute about global climate change. We know that the
public is paying more at the pump when the Democrat majority promised
lower prices. That's a given.
We had a hearing in the subcommittee last week. My issue to the
panelists was, the American public, they need to understand that if we
address global climate change there is going to be a cost.
Of course, some on the environmental left said no. We're going to
have all these efficiencies. We're going to have all these new jobs.
It's going to be a wash.
Well, it's funny, flying home, an AP story on the 12th, the State of
California is going to put on the electrical bill, a 25 or 30 percent
surcharge on customers' electric and gas bills for global climate
change. So your electricity bills are going to go up. Gas prices are
up. Electricity prices are up. You're going to pay more in taxes.
This is bitter change, bitter change, not good change. Bitter change.
Bitter change for the average American who all they want to do is go to
work and pay their bills, take care of their family, try to save some
for the future. They can't save with these high energy prices.
And you saw the independent truckers, the article I held up.
If we could have effective change, let's assume that we do all we can
as Americans to lead the way, go through all this pain. Do you really
believe that our Chinese friends, after I gave all the stats on what
they're doing, are going to comply with an international agreement? Not
only do I not believe it, they've told me no. And I've mentioned this
in many committee hearings.
In fact, the senior Chinese official said twice to two of my
Democratic colleagues' questions when they said, if the United States
led, would you agree to an international agreement to coal carbon?
And their answer was, you all have had, well they didn't use you all.
That's kind of a Southern Illinois thing. They said, you have had 200
years to develop a middle class in your country using fossil fuels, and
it's our turn. That doesn't sound like a country that wants to address
carbon debate in an international arena.
So should Americans, should we go through all this pain on global
climate change, and have no gain? Do we go through all this exercise,
all these job dislocations, all this pain, for not one single benefit?
And if we do, you know, I just want us to be transparent with our
citizens. Intellectually honest. Chairman Dingell said, you know, if we
want to be honest with the American people, what we should do is put 50
cents additional tax on gasoline and take that money, and address our
carbon debate.
Well, that works great. That now takes $3.50 a gallon of gas, which
people are outraged about, and brings it up to $4. And it's going to
get to $4 without the additional 50 cent tax. But at least it's
intellectually honest, saying that there's going to be a cost.
The California Public Utility Commission is honest. 25 to 30 percent
increase on your energy bill for climate change. Great.
Well, it wasn't a front-page story. It was, I don't know, I ripped it
up. I think it was, like, the Business Section, like D6, way in the
back. So I'm not sure if it made the front page of the California
papers, but that's what their public utility commission has agreed to
do.
All pain, no gain. The public needs to know the cost and be prepared
to assume the cost.
All I see in this debate on energy is bitter change, bitter change
for the working men and women of this country. This is contrary to the
promises made.
April 24, 2006, Speaker Nancy Pelosi said ``Democrats have a
commonsense plan to help bring down skyrocketing gas prices.'' Bring
down skyrocketing gas. They weren't even skyrocketing then compared to
what we have now. Now we've got skyrocketing gas prices.
Majority Leader Steny Hoyer said, ``Democrats believe that we can do
more for the American people who are struggling to deal with high gas
prices.''
Y'all did more? You raised gas prices even more.
Democratic Whip Jim Clyburn said, ``House Democrats have a plan to
help curb rising gas prices.''
{time} 2045
No energy plan is a plan to fail. We go from $58.31 a barrel of crude
oil to today, $111.
Now, I got these on little, kind of like a Blue Dog type of thing. I
got this on a moveable type of a number system here. So that if it goes
up, I can add. If it goes down, I can adjust. But the reality is, the
spread, under the leadership of this House, has only gone up. And I
believe, and the economists today believe, it will continue to go up.
We can do better. We can do better. I talked to many of my friends on
the other side. I actually voted for CAFE language. That was a hard
thing for me to do. Helped expand the renewable fuel standard. Brought
biodiesel and ethanol into the national energy debate. That's all good
stuff. Energy Star provisions. Electricity savings provisions.
[[Page H2256]]
We want the deployment of solar cells. We want wind power. As I
mentioned earlier, Illinois could be at the forefront of electricity
generation by wind.
What we do know, Texas had to call their high electricity users when
their wind turbines stopped turning because the wind stopped blowing.
That's the challenge of renewable energy. Instead of having a
consistent base-load energy, and in this country it's undisputed that
coal is the primary commodity product that produces 50 percent of the
electricity generation in this country. The electricity we're using in
the Capitol building tonight is produced by coal. The electricity on
the Capitol grounds is produced by coal.
There are some of my friends on the other side that would like us to
not use another ounce of fossil fuels ever in this country. I am afraid
of those days because those days will only occur when there's another
worldwide recession. And you want to see the pain and the agony and the
frustration on the middle- and the lower-middle class of our country,
wait till there's no jobs. We won't be putting carbon in the air. That
will be good for some people, but we won't be employing our citizens
either. And that will be a shame.
Madam Speaker, I want to thank you for giving me this time. I want to
thank my colleagues, Congressman Garrett and Congressman Sullivan, for
joining me in a plea to my friends on the other side that, as we
continue to talk about energy, we don't disregard the supply debate.
That's got to be part of the solution. It just has to be because just
so much of the electricity that we use today is based upon 50 percent
coal, 20 percent nuclear, 20 percent hydroelectric. They have to be
part of the mix. It's my plea that, as we move forward and try to
address the high cost of electricity and liquid fuel, we remember the
great resources that we have in this country and have a plan to use
them.
____________________